The best expose on PRISM now comes from the 40 year career NSA employee, William Benny, who became the Director of Intelligence there under Geroge W. Bush. He has gone public since Snowden and detailed the full capabilities of PRISM and what the NSA was doing.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and
in which KENNEDY, J., joined in part. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., and ALITO,
J., filed dissenting opinions.

This is the case involving Arizonas requirement that would-be voters provide proof of citizenship before being able to register to vote. Arizonas proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the federal law requiring that states use the federal voter registration form. Justice Kennedy concurs in part and in judgment. Justices Thomas and Alito both filed dissenting opinions.

Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1; Amdt. 17. It would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.

Looks like a highly techincal decision without addressing the underlying issue. That said, an aggressive campaign to root out the perjury should fly but will fail on two fronts: the election will have already been stolen and good luck finding the fraudulent voters. It is all moot because those idiots in Congress are in process of declaring everybody citizens.

If you can’t require proof of citizenship iun order to vote what can you require??? What’s to stop anyone in the world from voting wherever and whenever he chooses? I’m just about ready to build a cabin in the woods somewhere and tell the world to f off!

Nonetheless, while the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form, it does not preclude States from deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicants ineligibility. Pp. 613.

Seems like the way to attack the problem would be to make the I.D. law for STATE elections instead. At that point you have the database available to weed out the fraudulent voters by matching it with a database of those registered to vote in federal elections.

Yes, item (c) in the syllabus leaves the door open for Arizona to correct the shortcoming and still accomplish their aim. Like I said, a highly technical decision supporting the Rule of Law without undermining Arizona’s ultimate aim. This is not the total fail it appears to be at first blush.

Seems like the way to attack the problem would be to make the I.D. law for STATE elections instead. At that point you have the database available to weed out the fraudulent voters by matching it with a database of those registered to vote in federal elections.

I was thinking in that direction too but right there on page 2 of the syllabus in item (c) is the opening for Arizona to adjust their process and get the form altered.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.